Stuffed with all honourable virtues'': Much Ado About Nothing and The Book of the Courtier

33 Pages·2006·0.22 MB·English

‘‘Stuffed with all honourable
virtues’’: Much Ado About Nothing
and The Book of the Courtier
by Philip D. Collington
INa1901articlepublishedinPMLA,MaryAugustaScottsuggested
thatShakespearemodeledthe‘‘merrywar’’ofwitsbetweenBene-
dickandBeatriceontheverbalsparringbetweenCastiglione’sGas-
parePallavicinoandEmiliaPia,yetsincethenfewcriticshaveexplored
correspondencesbetweenMuchAdoAboutNothing(1600)andTheBook
1
oftheCourtier(1528). Thisneglectissurprising,forasPeterBurkedocu-
ments, Castiglione’s book was widely read by Shakespeare’s contem-
poraries, whether in Italian, in Thomas Hoby’s 1561 English transla-
tion, or in subsequent Latin versions; and figures as varied as Roger
Ascham, Francis Bacon, John Florio, King James I, Ben Jonson, John
Marston,ThomasNashe,GeorgePuttenham,andThomasWhythorne
2
read and/or owned The Courtier. Eighteenth-century forger William
1
Scott,‘‘TheBookoftheCourtyer:APossibleSourceofBenedickandBeatrice,’’PMLA16
(1901),475–502(hereaftercitedparenthetically).QuotationsfromCastiglioneandShake-
spearearetakenfromthefollowingeditionsandwillbecitedparentheticallyinmytext:
TheBookoftheCourtier,trans.ThomasHoby,ed.VirginiaCox,Everymaned.(London:
J.M.Dent,1994);andMuchAdoAboutNothing,ed.SheldonP.Zitner,OxfordWorldClas-
sics(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1998).Inhisintroductiontoanearliereditionof
Hoby’sCourtier(theoneusedbyScott),WalterRaleighchartedCastiglione’sinfluence
onElizabethanliteratureingeneralterms:‘‘itisnotclearthatShakespeareknewTHE
COURTIER,’’Raleighargued,butItaliancourtesybooksmayhaveinspiredthewitof
‘‘BeatriceandBenedick,ofRosalindandOrlando’’(Raleigh,ed.,TheBookoftheCourtier
FromtheItalianofCountBaldassareCastiglione:DoneintoEnglishbySirThomasHobyANNO
1561,TudorTranslations23[1900;repr.,NewYork:AMSPress,1967],lxxix,lxxxiv).
2
Burke,TheFortunesofthe‘‘Courtier’’:TheEuropeanReceptionofCastiglione’s‘‘Cortegiano’’
(UniversityPark,PA:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,1995),passim;seeespecially
‘‘Appendix2:ReadersoftheCourtierbefore1700,’’163–78.Raleighpointsoutthatfour
editionsofHoby’stranslationwereprintedduringthereignofElizabeth:1561,1577,1588,
and1603(introductiontoTheBookoftheCourtier,TudorTranslationsedition,lix–lx).
281
©2006TheUniversityofNorthCarolinaPress
282 MuchAdoAboutNothingandTheBookoftheCourtier
IrelandevensignedShakespeare’snameina1603editionofTheCour-
tier (now in the British Library), prompting Burke to wonder: ‘‘Why
did he do this? Did he consider Castiglione, like Shakespeare, to be a
3
representative of the Renaissance?’’ Whatever Ireland’s motives, the
associationofthesetwoauthorsiswell-founded.AsDanielJavitchex-
plains,forElizabethansseekingself-improvement,‘‘Castiglione’sper-
fectcourtierhadbecomeanimportantandappealingmodelofcivilized
conduct’’;andWalterRaleighnotesthat,forwritersinparticular,The
4
Courtier‘‘provedanexcellentbooktostealfrom.’’ Recentstudieshave
uncoveredindebtednesstoCastiglioneinahostofotherplays,ranging
5
fromLove’sLabor’sLostandMeasureforMeasuretoHamletandOthello.
YetwhenitcomestoMuchAdo,littlesustainedcommentaryhasbeen
attemptedsinceScott:GeoffreyBulloughbrieflynoteshowthescenes
inwhichBenedickandBeatricearedupedintofallinginlove(2.3,3.1)
recallLodovicoCanossa’staleofawomanfallingforamanuponhear-
ing‘‘theopinionofmany’’attestingtohisworthiness(3.67);BarbaraK.
Lewalskidevotesseveralpagestotheplay’slinkstoCastiglioneinde-
bating matters of desire, knowledge, and neoplatonic love; and A. R.
HumphreysacknowledgesthatMuchAdomirrorsCastiglione’sappre-
6
ciationforverbalwit,decorum,dancing,andmusic.
IbelievethatShakespearedoesmorewithTheCourtierthansimply
3
Burke,TheFortunesofthe‘‘Courtier,’’132.
4
Javitch,prefacetoTheBookoftheCourtier:TheSingletonTranslation,NortonCritical
Editions(NewYork:Norton,2002),vii;Raleigh,introduction,TheBookoftheCourtier,
TudorTranslationsedition,lxxviii.
5
SeeDonatellaBaldini,‘‘ThePlayoftheCourtier:CorrespondencesbetweenCasti-
glione’sIllibrodelCortegianoandShakespeare’sLove’sLabour’sLost,’’Quadernid’Italianistica
18(1997):5–22;C.L.Gent,‘‘MeasureforMeasureandtheFourthBookofCastiglione’sIl
Cortegiano,’’ModernLanguageReview67(1972):252–56;BarbaraA.Johnson,‘‘TheFabricof
theUniverseRent:HamletasanInversionofTheCourtier,’’HamletStudies9(1987):34–52;
MitchellAllenSutterfield,‘‘‘Courtier,Soldier,Scholar’:Self-FashioninginCastiglione’s
CourtierandShakespeare’sHamlet’’(Ph.D.diss.,GeorgeWashingtonUniversity,1992);
VivianaComensoli,‘‘Music,TheBookoftheCourtier,andOthello’sSoldiership,’’inTheItal-
ianWorldofEnglishRenaissanceDrama:CulturalExchangeandIntertextuality,ed.Michele
Marrapodi(Newark:UniversityofDelawarePress,1998),89–105.Otherstudiesofnote
includeCajsaC.Baldini,‘‘ACourtieroraPrince:Shakespeare’sRichardIIasaDrama-
tizationofConflictingParadigmsofPoliticalCraftsmanship,’’ForumItalicum37(2003):
56–69;MauriceHunt,‘‘WaysofKnowinginTheMerchantofVenice,’’ShakespeareQuarterly
30(1979):89–93;andCamilleWellsSlights,‘‘CommonCourtesyinTheTwoGentlemen
ofVerona,’’inShakespeare’sComicCommonwealths(Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,
1993),57–73.
6
Bullough,NarrativeandDramaticSourcesofShakespeare.VolumeII:TheComedies,1597–
1603(London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul,1958),79–80;Lewalski,ed.,MuchAdoAbout
Nothing,BlackfriarsShakespeare(Dubuque,IA:WilliamC.Brown,1969),xiv–xvi;Hum-
phreys,ed.,MuchAdoAboutNothing,ArdenShakespeare(London:Methuen,1985),16–19.
PhilipD.Collington 283
borrowcharactertypes,reworkstocksituations,orrehashhumanistcli-
chésaboutrhetoricandthearts,butIreopenthiscomparativeproject
inthefaceofscholarlyresistance.ForalthoughScottpraisesTheCour-
tierasaworkthathas‘‘borne...wellthejudgmentoftime,’’thesame
cannot be said for her article (475–76). According to Burke, her list
ofcorrespondences‘‘fail[s]tocarryconviction’’andshouldserveasa
warningof‘‘thedangerofseeingCastiglioneeverywhere’’;Humphreys
considers the resemblances outlined by Scott ‘‘merely general paral-
lels, sometimes quite loose, and not specific enough to prove a direct
debtowedbyShakespearetoCastiglione’’;andina1983study,Louise
GeorgeClubbscoffsthatScott’sargument‘‘smacksofthatdesperation
which is an occupational hazard to source hunters, especially Shake-
7
spearean ones.’’ Others, when they mention links between Much Ado
and The Courtier, dismiss them in passing and without substantiating
8
their objections. My point is not to exhume a century-old study in
ordertovindicateacriticchargedwithmethodologicalnaïveté,senti-
mentalcharacterology,orworstofall,‘‘Fluellenism’’—atermcoinedby
Richard Levin after theWelsh captain who argued that salmon in the
rivers of Monmouth and Macedonia proved HenryV was descended
9
from Alexander the Great. Instead, a reading of Much Ado alongside
TheCourtierevincestheEnglishdramatist’sskepticalexaminationofthe
source’scourtier-ideal,presentedinanaccessibledramaticform.Iwill
counter Burke’s misplaced caution about ‘‘the danger of seeing Casti-
glioneeverywhere’’andhiscontentionthatthetwotextssharelittlebe-
7
Burke,TheFortunesofthe‘‘Courtier,’’27,82;Humphreys,ed.,MuchAdo,Ardenedition,
16n.2;Clubb,‘‘Castiglione’sHumanisticArtandRenaissanceDrama,’’inCastiglione:The
IdealandtheRealinRenaissanceCulture,ed.RobertW.HanningandDavidRosand(New
Haven:YaleUniversityPress,1983),191.Clubb’sownstudytracescorrespondencesbe-
tweenTheCourtierandlaterItalianstage-comedies—source-hunting,tobesure,butat
leastit’snotShakespeareansource-hunting!Bulloughfinds‘‘noverycloseresemblances’’
betweenthetwoworksbutconcedesthatCastiglione’sbookprovidesan‘‘interesting
analogue’’toMuchAdo(NarrativeandDramaticSourcesofShakespeare,78–80).Without
specifyingwhichplay(s)hehasinmind,GeorgeBullwritesthatShakespeare’sjokesand
witticisms‘‘renewthejokesandpunsrecommendedbyCastiglione’’(introductiontoThe
Courtier,trans.Bull,PenguinClassicsedition[London:Penguin,1976],14).
8
F.H.Mares’sintroductiontotheNewCambridgeShakespeareeditionmaybetaken
asrepresentativeinthisrespect:aftersummarizingthepreliminaryfindingsofScott,Bul-
lough,andLewalski,theeditordismissestheirproposedparallelsas‘‘distant’’hintsand
countersthatShakespeare’s‘‘realoriginality’’layinusingtheBenedick-Beatriceplotto
commentontheClaudio-HeroplotborrowedfromBandelloandAriosto(MuchAdoAbout
Nothing,NewCambridgeShakespeare[Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1988],
6–7).
9
Levin,NewReadingsvs.OldPlays:RecentTrendsintheReinterpretationofEnglishRenais-
sanceDrama(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1979),209–29.
284 MuchAdoAboutNothingandTheBookoftheCourtier
10
sidesageneralsenseofstyleandwit. Thereismoretoanintertextual
matrix than verbal parallels or one-to-one correspondences between
characterslikeBeatriceandEmiliaPia.Castiglioneis‘‘everywhere’’in
Much Ado, an intellectual presence to which Shakespeare responds in
profoundandhithertounexaminedways.
Intheparagraphsthatfollow,Iwilldemonstratehowissuesdebated
inTheCourtierreappearasanumberofthematiccontroversiesinShake-
speare’scomedy.Afterabriefelaborationofsomeofthe‘‘remarkable
correspondences’’ proposed by Scott (502), I will turn to Much Ado’s
profoundintellectualengagementwithTheCourtier’sdebatesconcern-
ing gender, laughter, friendship, service, and sprezzatura. I will argue
that, despite his initial loutish behavior as the play’s scorner-of-love,
Benedick comes to represent Castiglione’s courtier-ideal by embrac-
ingthisauthor’s‘‘middleway,’’strikingbalancesbetweenhomosocial
friendship and heterosexual love; between soldierly roughness and
courtlyrefinement;betweenadherencetoliterarypreceptsandaccep-
tance of social exigencies; and between self-advancement and service
tohisprince.Scotthintsatthistransformationinheridentificationof
theamendmentoffaultsasanimportantthemeinbothworks(497)and
in her acknowledgment that ‘‘Gaspare, for all his chaff, is, like Bene-
dick,eminentlyreasonableandpractical’’(495).Butthelattercharacter
isnotalwaysso;Scottmerelyscratchesthesurfaceofacomplexpro-
cessdramatizedinShakespeare’scomedy.Paradoxically,thecharacter
who comes to exemplify Castiglione’s ideal is not the play’s ranking
prince(DonPedro’sfailingswillbedetailedbelow),butBenedick—the
manironicallyintroducedas‘‘Alordtoalord,amantoaman,stuffed
with all honourable virtues’’ (1.1.54–55). Benedick may not end up a
‘‘stuffed’’man,buthedoesultimatelysurpasshispeersinhiscapacity
to reject impossible standards and the interpersonal intolerance that
ensues therefrom and instead to accept personal imperfection, social
compromise,anduncertaintyinlove.
I
Scott concludes her seminal article by identifying a number of corre-
spondencesbetweenShakespeare’scomedyandTheCourtier(see491–
502).ShepointsoutthatthegeneralsettingofMessinainMuchAdore-
sembles the leisurely world of Urbino, where pastimes include witty
10
Burke,TheFortunesofthe‘‘Courtier,’’82–83.
PhilipD.Collington 285
conversation,composingverse,masking,dancing,andplayinggames,
11
butwherewarfareisanomnipresentoffstagereality. Whenitcomes
to the courtly games, both settings of Urbino and Messina operate as
de-factomatriarchiesinwhichthehighest-rankingfemales,Elisabetta
GonzagaandHero,cedetheircentralplaceto—anddefertothelivelier
intellectsof—theirclosestfriendsandconfidants,EmiliaandBeatrice.
Emilia‘‘wasendowedwithsolivelyeawyttandjudgement...[that]she
seemedthemaistresseandringeleaderofallthecompanye’’(1.4);like-
wise, Don Pedro compliments Beatrice’s ‘‘merry heart,’’ and Antonio
12
marvels that, unlike Hero, she will not ‘‘be ruled’’ (2.1.310, 49). Scott
likensBeatrice’songoingcompetitionwithBenedickforthelastword
(‘‘Youalwaysendwithajade’strick.Iknowyouofold’’[1.1.140–41])
toEmilia’speriodicquellingofGaspare’santifeministflightsoffancy.
ScottalsonotestheItalianprecursorclosesTheCourtierbydemanding
that her rival ‘‘stand to triall’’ for speaking ill of women (4.73), while
Beatrice demands justice for the slander of Hero. Moreover, as with
Beatrice’s heightened sense of verbal decorum (‘‘I wonder that you
willstillbetalking,SignorBenedick;nobodymarksyou’’[1.1.112–13]),
Emilia doesn’t suffer long-winded fools gladly, as she terminates Fra
Serafino’s‘‘triflyngtales’’(1.9)andLodovico’s‘‘veryetedyouse’’dispu-
tationonclassicalrhetoric(1.39).ScottlikensBenedick’scomplaintof
Beatrice’swittybarbs(‘‘Istoodlikeamanatamark,withawholearmy
shootingatme’’[2.1.245–46])totheladies’comicassaultonGaspare‘‘as
[though] they wold have buffeted him and done as the wood women
didtoOrpheus’’(2.96).
Scott does not explore the way both play and courtesy book fre-
quently liken courtship to military exercises: Bernardo Accolti (a.k.a.
UnicoAretino)recommendsthatsuitorsattempt‘‘towinnthefortresse
of [her] minde, to breake in peeces those most harde Diamondes . . .
thatlyemanytimesinthetenderbrestesofthesewomen’’(2.94),and
Giulianode’Mediciwarnsthatladies’eyes‘‘lyelurkingelikesouldiers
11
Cf.WayneA.Rebhorn,whoarguesthattheidealizedsettingofTheCourtierisplaced
‘‘againstabackdropofwar,destruction,cut-throatcompetition,andunprovokedmalice,’’
exteriorrealitieswhichoccasionallyintrudeintoUrbino’spoliteconversations(Courtly
Performances:MaskingandFestivityinCastiglione’s‘‘BookoftheCourtier’’[Detroit:Wayne
StateUniversityPress,1978],121).
12
Bull(introductiontoTheCourtier,Penguinedition,15)reportsthatEmiliaPia’sdeath
in1528occasionedsomescandalinRomebecauseofreportsthat,ratherthanreceiving
thesacramentsonherdeathbed,shediscussedpassagesfromTheCourtier—atheological
insouciancerevivedinBeatrice’sowncavalierattitudetowardstheafterlife:‘‘there[i.e.,
atthegateofhell]willthedevilmeetmelikeanoldcuckoldwithhornsonhishead’’
(2.1.42–43).
286 MuchAdoAboutNothingandTheBookoftheCourtier
in warre lyinge in wayte in bushment’’ (3.66). Such passages antici-
pateDonPedro’sproxywooingofHero(‘‘inherbosomI’llunclaspmy
heart/Andtakeherhearingprisonerwiththeforce/Andstrongen-
counterofmyamoroustale’’[1.1.312–14])orClaudio’snervousaggres-
sion on their (second) wedding day: ‘‘Which is the lady I must seize
upon?’’(5.4.53).Theseverbalechoesemphasizetheheightenedmascu-
lineanxietyandthebarelyrepressedmistrustofwomenexhibitedby
13
a variety of men in both Urbino and Messina. As mentioned above,
Scottdoesnotethatcourtesybookandplaysharepreoccupationswith
theamendmentoffaults,especiallytheenumerationoftheideallady’s
andgentleman’sgraces.FinallyshespotsverbalechoesinHoby’strans-
14
lation, such as the phrase ‘‘much ado’’ (anticipating the play’s title)
or in such adages as ‘‘he that loveth much, speaketh little,’’ which re-
cursinMuchAdoinClaudio’sline,‘‘Silenceistheperfectestheraldof
joy’’(2.1.303).Atthispoint,however,herargumentpetersoutanddoes
notconsidertheimplicationsoftheintertextsbeyondasuggestionthat
BeatriceandBenedickderivetheir‘‘vividness’’fromthefactthatthey
15
were‘‘originallyreal[sic]persons’’(502).
I would elaborate upon Scott’s character correspondences by com-
paringUrbino’sbedriddenDukeGuidobaldo(whomustabsenthimself
fromeachevening’sdebates)toMessina’srelativelyineffectualgover-
nor, Leonato (whose impotent fury is mocked by Hero’s accusers in
5.1).CastiglionecomplimentsDuchessElisabetta’spatienceintheface
of her husband’s debilitating illness, saying that although her virtues
‘‘would perhaps have lien hid a space, fortune . . . thought good with
manyadversitiesandtemptatyonsofmiseriestodisclosethem,tomake
trial therby that in the tender breast of a woman, in companye wyth
syngulerbeawtye,therecandwellwysdome,andstoutenesofcourage,
andallothervertuesthatingravementhemselvesaremostseldome’’
13
Onmasculineanxietiesexploredin(andelicitedby)TheCourtier,seeJenniferRich-
ards,‘‘‘Awantontradeofliving’?Rhetoric,Effeminacy,andtheEarlyModernCourtier,’’
Criticism42(2000):185–206;onMuchAdo,seeJaniceHays,‘‘Those‘SoftandDelicateDe-
sires’:MuchAdoandtheDistrustofWomen,’’inTheWoman’sPart:FeministCriticismof
Shakespeare,ed.CarolynR.S.Lenz,GayleGreene,andCarolThomasNeely(Urbana:Uni-
versityofIllinoisPress,1980),79–99;andCarolCook,‘‘‘TheSignandSemblanceofHer
Honor’:ReadingGenderDifferenceinMuchAdoAboutNothing,’’PMLA101(1986):186–
202.
14
According to Lewalski’s count, the phrase occurs ‘‘at least three times’’ in Hoby
(MuchAdo,Blackfriarsed.,xiv).
15
OnthedegreetowhichtheeventswhichtranspireatUrbinoinTheCourtier(and
itscharacters,purportedlydrawnfromlife)forman‘‘elaboratefiction’’—anidealrecon-
structionratherthananaccuratetranscription—seeRebhorn,CourtlyPerformances,53–56.
PhilipD.Collington 287
(1.4).InMuchAdo,Leonato’swifeisapparentlynolongerliving,butthe
playdramatizesthetestingofhisdaughter’svirtuebyafflictingHero
withadversityandmisery(highlighting,intheprocess,thefailingsof
‘‘grave’’men).AndalthoughLeonatoranksonlyasalocalgovernor,he
runshishouseholdlikeaminiaturecourtinwhichvisitingprincesare
‘‘royallyentertained’’(1.3.41).
If anything, Scott only shows the tip of the iceberg of correspon-
dences.InadditiontothoseidentifiedbyBullough,Lewalski,andHum-
phreys,Iproposethefollowing:Item.CastiglionededicatedTheCour-
tier to his close friend Alfonso Ariosto; Shakespeare borrowed plot
16
materialsfromOrlandoFuriosobyhisrelativeLudovicoAriosto. Item.
LikeShakespeare,Castiglionewasamanofthetheater,possiblycom-
17
posingprologuesforcomediesandproducingplaysforthepope. And
justasShakespearemayhavetakenbitpartsinhisownplays(e.g.,play-
ingFriarFrancisinMuchAdo),CastiglioneinsertshimselftwiceintoThe
18
Courtier. Bothmencharacterizetheworldasastageonwhichidentity
is more performance than essence. Item. The Courtier’s Bernardo Bib-
bienaboaststhathisgraceandbeautycause‘‘manywomen[to]burne
fortheloveofme,asyouknowe’’(1.19),anticipatingBenedick’sridicu-
lousclaimtoBeatricethat‘‘itiscertainIamlovedofallladies,onlyyou
excepted’’(1.1.120–21).Item.BernardoBibbienalatertellsa‘‘dishonest
andshamefull’’jestaboutawomanwhodecoratedherdoorwith‘‘the
headesofthewieldebeastesthat[she]killetheveriedayeinhuntinge’’
(2.93),whichreappearsasBeatrice’squery,‘‘howmanyhath[Benedick]
killed?ForindeedIpromisedtoeatallofhiskilling’’(1.1.41–43).
16
SeeBull,‘‘CharactersinTheCourtier,’’inTheCourtier,Penguined.,23;onShake-
speare’sborrowingsfromOrlandoFurioso,seeZitner,ed.MuchAdo,Oxforded.,11;and
Bullough,ed.,NarrativeandDramaticSourcesofShakespeare,62–105.Neithereditornotes
thecoincidenceindedicatee/source.
17
Clubb, ‘‘Castiglione’s Humanistic Art and Renaissance Drama,’’ 191–92; Ralph
Roeder, The Man of the Renaissance: Four Lawgivers: Savonarola, Machiavelli, Castiglione,
Aretino(NewYork:VikingPress,1933),318.Onthetheatricalunderpinningsofthecourtly
ideal,seeRebhorn,CourtlyPerformances,23–51.
18
TheCourtierexcusesCastiglione’sabsencefromtheUrbinodialoguesintheearly
pages(1.1),butOctavianpromisesacameoappearanceby‘‘ourCastilio’’upontheau-
thor’s return from the court of HenryVII (4.38). For ongoing speculation concerning
Shakespeare’sactingcareerandminorroleshemayhaveplayed,seeParkHonan,Shake-
speare: A Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 204–5 and sources cited there.
StephenGreenblattsupportsNicholasRowe’scontentionthatShakespeareperformedan
autobiographicalGhostinHamlet:‘‘itwouldhavebeenhisbestrole’’(WillintheWorld:
HowShakespeareBecameShakespeare[NewYork:Norton,2004],322).Castiglione,onthe
otherhand,wasmockedbycontemporariesfor‘‘identifyinghimselfwithhismodel’’
(Raleigh,introductiontoTheCourtier,TudorTranslationsedition,xii–xiii).
288 MuchAdoAboutNothingandTheBookoftheCourtier
AndItem.ShakespearemaypayhomagetohisItaliansourcebynam-
ing the play’s singing servant Balthasar.To be sure, there are Baltha-
sarsinotherplays,butunlikethemerchantfromTheComedyofErrors,
thefootmaninRomeoandJuliet,andtheletter-carrierinTheMerchantof
Venice,BalthasarinMuchAdoparticipatesinseveralpopularCourtier-
like pastimes: dancing (e.g., with Margaret), debating (e.g., women’s
‘‘illqualities’’),utteringsocialadages(e.g.,aboutthefollyof‘‘wooers’’),
composingwitticisms(e.g.,hispunningon‘‘note’’),andplayingmusic
19
(e.g.,hissong‘‘SighNoMore,Ladies’’). WhenBalthasarmodestlyde-
clines Don Pedro’s initial request for a song, the Prince gently chides
himinlinesthatencapsulatethespiritofthecourtesybook:‘‘Itisthe
witness still of excellency / To put a strange face on his own perfec-
tion’’(2.3.46–47).Burkedismissesthisexchangeasmerelypokingfun
20
at the ‘‘exaggerated modesty’’ of a theatrical ‘‘fop.’’ Yet there is more
tothispassagethanasatiricaljibe;itemphasizesqualitiesofmodesty,
refinement,andgracewhichpervadethecourtesybook.Isitreallyjust
a coincidence that Balthasar (=Baldassare Castiglione) discusses with
DonPedro(=theplay’scourtlyprince)thesignalimportanceof‘‘perfec-
tion’’?RightfromtheopeningquipaboutBenedickbeing‘‘stuffed’’with
virtues,theplaydebateswhichqualitiesconstituteanidealcourtier’s
identity.
ThesamesceneinwhichBalthasarreluctantlysingsopenswithBene-
dick’s private meditation on hypocrisy and human folly: ‘‘I do much
wonderthatoneman,seeinghowmuchanothermanisafoolwhenhe
dedicateshisbehaviourstolove,will,afterhehathlaughedatsuchshal-
lowfolliesinothers,becometheargumentofhisownscornbyfallingin
love’’(2.3.8–12).HereishowCastiglione’sCesareGonzagaintroduces
asimilartopicfordebate:
Whosowylldiligentlyeconsiderallourdoynges,heshallfyndealwayesinthem
sundrye imperfections . . . . where one man knoweth that an other knoweth
not,andisignoraunteinthethyngthattheotherhathunderstandyngein,eche
mandotheasilyeperceyvetheerrourofhysfelow,andnothysowne;andwe
all think oure selves to be verye wyse and peradventure in that poynt most,
whereinwearemostfoolysh.(1.8)
WhereGonzagacitesasexamplesmenwho,onceincited,‘‘wexedfool-
ishinverses,someinmusicke,someinlove,someindaunsinge,somein
19
SeeBalthazar’sbriefappearancesinMuchAdo(2.1.98–110,2.3.44–93,and5.3.12–
21).Zitnerdiscussesthesinger’s‘‘aristocraticpretensions’’yetmakesnocommentonthe
similarityinname(MuchAdo,Oxfordedition,44–45).
20
Burke,TheFortunesofthe‘‘Courtier,’’110.
PhilipD.Collington 289
makyngeantiques’’(30),Benedickcitesasevidencethesuddentrans-
formationsinClaudio,suchasthelatter’snewtasteinmusic(‘‘thetabor
andthepipe’’),fashion(‘‘anewdoublet’’),andrhetoric(‘‘Hiswordsare
a very fantastical banquet’’) (2.3.8–21). Rather than merely posit such
passages as verbal parallels between Shakespeare and Castiglione, I
propose that the rest of this particular scene confirms the validity of
Gonzaga’sconclusion,that‘‘forcerteine...ineveryeoneofusthereis
someseedeoffolye,thewhichbeyngstirredmaymultiplye(inamaner)
infinite’’ (30–31). For once the seed of love is planted by his peers in
thegardenscene,itlikewisemultiplieswith‘‘infinite’’rapidityinBene-
dick:‘‘Iwillbehorriblyinlovewithher’’(2.3.232).Thispassagetypifies
Shakespeare’s intertextual engagement with The Courtier: rather than
beingmuchadoaboutnothing,theplayprobestheshiftingfoundations
ofpersonalandsocialidentitythroughcharacterswhoprofferadvice,
debatevirtues,andquestionreceivedwisdomaboutgender,love,mar-
riage,andservice.
II
ReadingCastiglione’scourtesybookalongsideMuchAdocanelucidate
some of the play’s more puzzling passages, one of which, ironically,
stressestheinutilityofprofferingadvice.YetShakespearemaybede-
fending,notbiting,thesource-handthatfeedshim.Attheopeningof
act5,LeonatoupbraidshisbrotherAntonioforofferingconsolatoryad-
vice—‘‘preceptial medicine’’ (5.1.24)—regarding a daughter that both
knowisnotreallyafornicatorandnotreallydead.‘‘Givemenocoun-
sel,’’Leonatosays(threetimes),castigatinghypocriticalscholarswho
would‘‘patchgriefwithproverbs’’:‘‘therewasneveryetphilosopher/
That could endure the toothache patiently, / However they have writ
[in] the style of gods’’ (3–33, 35–37).While both men are understand-
ably distraught over Hero’s slander, playgoers and readers would be
justifiedinquestioningtheappropriatenessofthelengthycharade(30+
lines)inwhichthetwospeakofher—inprivate,unusually,andnotfor
thebenefitofeavesdroppers—asifsheweredead:‘‘Bringmeafather
thatsolovedhischild,/Whosejoyofherisoverwhelmedlikemine,/
Andbidhimspeakofpatience’’(8–10,emphasisadded).Heroisalive:
shouldhenotlove(presenttense)her?Thisoddpassagemaystemmore
fromtheplaywright’sengagementwithCastiglionethanwithfidelity
toconsistentcharacterization.AsBurke’sstudyoftheEuropeanrecep-
tionofTheCourtierdocuments,byShakespeare’sdaythedialogiccom-
plexitiesofthebookhadbeenironedsmoothbypedanticeditorsand